Trump's Attempt to Conceal Battlefield Realities
Developments in the Strait of Hormuz following the signing of the 14-point memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States reflected, above all, the two sides' disagreement over implementing the agreement. While the memorandum was to take effect with the announcement of an end to the war and a halt to Israeli attacks on Lebanon, the continuation of the regime's attacks and Washington's refusal to exert effective pressure on Tel Aviv created the conditions for escalating tensions.
Ambassador Arjan-Political Group: At the same time, the fifth paragraph of the memorandum on determining the passageways for ships and ensuring their security in the Strait of Hormuz became the focus of disagreement between Tehran and Washington; A dispute that, despite the temporary reopening of the strait and the passage of a large number of ships, eventually led to its closing again. The US-aligned media also raised doubts about the provisions of the fifth paragraph of the memorandum, questioning the IRGC's authority to determine crossings and control the traffic of ships; However, this memorandum of understanding was not a rushed text and its contents were compiled after the review of technical, legal and security groups. However, the US created crossings south of the Strait of Hormuz, which, in my opinion, was fake and aimed at violating the agreement; This is despite the fact that determining the passage routes of the ships and ensuring their security was the responsibility of the Corps. With the continued movement of ships carrying oil, gas, chemical fertilizers and other materials needed by the world, despite the repeated warnings of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the navy of this organization was forced to react, and the United States, in an effort to maintain its regional authority, began attacking the bases, observation centers, and sensitive facilities of the Iranian Navy.
Expanding Iran's control over shipping lanes
In the continuation of this process, the transfer of oil with small vessels to larger ships and the transfer of cargo with air escort continued. At the same time, Iran emphasized the need for ships carrying energy and petrochemical products to pass through designated routes and considered crossing other routes as a threat to the security of the Strait of Hormuz.
In this regard, the plan to expand the scope of tracking ships and define routes outside the Strait of Hormuz can be considered an attempt to expand the scope of Iran's authority and align with America in this field. After that, the United States tried to limit Tehran's leverage by blocking the sea of southern Iranian ports and continuing to try to transfer the country's oil and gas through small vessels and maritime mediation and smuggling networks.
This blockade, in addition to economic consequences, can also be examined from the perspective of international law and humanitarian law, and depending on its effects, it can be a violation of the rules of armed conflict. On the other hand, Iran has intensified its measures to deal with this trend.
Claiming control of Hormuz and trying to control the energy market
Since the beginning of the conflicts, Trump has repeatedly claimed the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and the continuation of oil exports from this route, and by announcing different figures, he tried to downplay the traffic restrictions and Iran's leverage. However, the continued volatility of the energy market and the oil price remaining in the range of $96 to $105, in my opinion, showed that these claims do not match the market reality. To control prices, Washington resorted to the limited transfer of oil from alternative routes, psychological influence on the market, the use of strategic reserves and the supply of part of Venezuela's oil; However, the withdrawal of strategic reserves, due to the reduction of America's ability to deal with future crises, raised concerns in the Congress and ultimately failed to prevent the increase in the price of energy carriers. The increase in fuel prices, especially diesel in states like California, has also intensified the economic pressure on America and can affect the industrial, transportation and manufacturing sectors. In this situation, Washington turned to Russia to provide part of the needs of the energy market; However, the volume of the referred shipments compared to the consumption of America and the world market, is not enough to solve this problem in the short term. In my opinion, in addition to economic considerations, curbing the energy price is also related to domestic political concerns and Trump's attempt to strengthen the electoral position of the Republicans, and now the main issue is how Iran can take advantage of the created position to strengthen its position in negotiations and secure national interests. Of course, the Strait of Hormuz is not the only passage for energy exports, but it is also an important route for the import of medicine, medical equipment, technology and basic goods of the southern countries of the Persian Gulf; Therefore, traffic restrictions in it can also affect the supply chain of these countries.
From this point of view, maintaining the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic lever in negotiations between Iran and the United States and exchanging messages through mediators such as Qatar is particularly important. On the other hand, by claiming the destruction of Iran's military power and the elimination of the possibility of negotiation, Trump is trying to induce the realization of Washington's goals and weaken Iran's position in public opinion and negotiations by using perception and media warfare.
Iran's seven axes are a prerequisite for returning to negotiations
On the sidelines of the New York summit, Iran proposed seven axes to advance the diplomatic path, and the messages related to these demands were conveyed to the United States through the Qatari mediator, but Washington initially did not accept at least part of them. However, Tehran still emphasizes on determining the tasks of these axes; This position is also reflected in the statements of Masoud Al-Badzikian, Abbas Araghchi, Mohsen Rezaei and other officials of the country. I believe that by claiming that the Strait of Hormuz has been opened and the issue has been resolved, Trump is trying to insinuate that Iran has lost its leverage and that America can enter into nuclear negotiations without paying. This is despite the fact that, from Tehran's point of view, the issue of Strait of Hormuz and seven axes are still an important part of the political and diplomatic bargaining equation. Iran's position is clear: until these seven axes are determined and America does not take practical action to implement them, returning to the negotiating table cannot take place without preconditions and compensation for past actions. Freeing Iran's blocked assets, announcing the end of the war and dealing with Tehran's other demands are among the steps that are expected in this framework. From this point of view, the Strait of Hormuz is not just a sea crossing for energy transfer, but it is part of Iran's power equation and bargaining leverage against America. Washington cannot, on the one hand, emphasize the resolution of differences and resumption of negotiations and, on the other hand, demand the start of a new round of talks without responding to Iran's demands and fulfilling Tehran's expected commitments. The focal point of the discussion is how to transform Iran's field, military and security achievements into political and diplomatic achievements. It should be clarified how to take advantage of the strategic position created to secure national interests in the negotiations, and at the same time, determine the status of the Strait of Hormuz after the end of the war, with any mechanism that leads to it.
Even if we consider the most optimistic scenario and assume that the two sides end the war based on a win-win equation, the fundamental question remains as to what the status of the Strait of Hormuz will be after the war and how its place in the political and security equations of the region will be defined.
In other words, the end of the war alone does not clarify the task of this strategic lever, and how it is managed in the post-war period will also be an important part of the political and diplomatic equations going forward.
The rights of coastal countries in the international equation of the Strait of Hormuz
From a legal point of view, the internationality of the Strait of Hormuz does not mean ignoring the rights and role of the coastal countries, i.e. Iran and Oman, in providing security and regulating traffic. The issue of receiving tolls was also one of the focal points of the negotiations between Tehran and Muscat, but with increasing pressure and threats from the United States, especially Trump's threats against Oman, this process was hindered. But from my point of view, the Strait of Hormuz can become a lever to strengthen the security, sovereignty and independence of Iran in the framework of the cooperation of coastal countries. With Oman's agreement, a meeting was to be held in Salalah with the presence of the southern countries of the Persian Gulf and Iraq, so that the regional parties could discuss the future of the Strait of Hormuz, traffic regulations, security mechanisms, and the costs and consequences of the new arrangements of this strategic crossing. The purpose of this meeting was to provide a basis for understanding between the countries of the region about how to manage and ensure the security of the Strait of Hormuz, without the interference of extra-regional powers; This means that the coastal countries and the neighbors of the region can agree on one of the most important strategic crossings in the world and take more responsibility in this field. However, from my point of view, the US does not agree with such an initiative, because it does not want Iran and Oman, especially Iran, to have a stronger role in the management and security of the Strait of Hormuz. Washington seeks to maintain maritime superiority and continue its influence in the region, and any changes in the security arrangements of this passage that lead to an increase in the role of coastal countries can limit its position. From this point of view, the American opposition to the formation of a regional mechanism for the management of the Strait of Hormuz should be analyzed in the context of this country's effort to maintain its dominant position in the maritime and security equations of the region. This situation is reminiscent of the British historical experience and the decline of this country's influence after the Suez Canal crisis; When the regional and international developments challenged the position of the power that dominated the strategic maritime routes for years. From this point of view, if new arrangements are formed in the Strait of Hormuz with the participation of coastal countries and the role of extra-regional powers is reduced in it, it may also affect the position and extent of American influence in the region. Therefore, the issue of the Strait of Hormuz is not limited to the regulation of transit or providing maritime security, but is also linked to the competition for regional influence and how to distribute roles and responsibilities between coastal countries and foreign powers.
If Iran can play an effective role in the formation of stable management mechanisms and security of the Strait of Hormuz with the participation of Oman and respecting the rights of other coastal countries, the country's strategic position in the region will be strengthened. Therefore, America is trying to prevent Iran from increasing its role in the security arrangements of this crossing. On the other hand, after suffering losses and the martyrdom of a number of its forces and officials, Iran cannot accept that after the end of the war, everything will return to the pre-conflict conditions and the Strait of Hormuz will be used as in the past without any change in management and security arrangements. Especially since the US has used this route before to transfer the equipment and weapons needed by the Zionist regime and to expand its military presence in the region. Therefore, from my point of view, ignoring the role and interests of Iran in the future arrangements of the Strait of Hormuz is unacceptable. I believe that the root of the current crisis in the Strait of Hormuz and other areas goes back to the war that America started; Therefore, Washington cannot expect Iran to return to pre-war conditions and abandon its strategic levers without accepting responsibility for its consequences. Iran should secure its rights and interests within the framework of a fair agreement, and the future arrangements of the Strait of Hormuz should be determined by respecting the rights of the coastal countries, through regional mechanisms and without the intervention and imposition of the will of extra-regional powers. The realization of this goal, I believe, requires maintaining national unity, coordination between military, security and diplomatic institutions, and standing on the path to the realization of Iran's rights.